In a damning 641-page report (the introduction to which is embedded below) produced by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC), investigators reveal that the horrific and ongoing nuclear disaster at Fukushima was “a profoundly man-made disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.”
Unlike other entities associated with the Japanese government, the NAIIC came to some quite damning conclusions, not the least of which is the accusation that the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, which continues to refuse to allow outside inspections of the reactor four building containing the dangerous spent fuel pool four, “betrayed the nation’s right to safety from nuclear accidents.”

The Fukushima NAIIC was formed by the statutory law enactment of Diet of Japan (the Japanese bicameral legislature made up of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors) on October 7, 2011, although the Chairman and Members were appointed in December of 2011.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Japanese peoples’ “right to safety from nuclear accidents” will likely never be respected seeing as they just restarted a reactor amidst massive public protest and that, statistically speaking, nuclear disasters may occur once every 10 to 20 years.

From a purely rational standpoint, it is impossible to recognize a “nation’s right to safety from nuclear accidents” without recognizing their right to be safe from nuclear power entirely, and the Japanese government seems unwilling to do that.

While recognizing the deadly combination of the tsunami and earthquake in March 2011, the investigatory committee concluded that the disaster was in large part actually man-made.

This is because, according to their findings, the conduct and practices which came both before and after the natural disaster aspect of the tragedy actually compounded the problem and “was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties.”

If the report ended there in pointing to collusion between the government and industry, I would be cheering on the authors of this report. However, they don’t stop there and actually say that had the “most basic safety requirements” been addressed, the disaster would never have been of this magnitude.

Some of these safety requirements, which, “The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop,” include, “assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release.”

All of this and more is included in a brief but incredibly important “Conclusions” section, which I highly encourage everyone to read. Some of the conclusions are generally surveyed in a BBC report, although I would exhort people to actually do the reading for themselves instead of having it fed to them, especially by the BBC.

The chairman of the commission, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, former head of the Tokyo University Department of Medicine, noted in the introduction, “It was a profoundly man-made disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.”

GE says the Mark I design has operated safely for more than 40 years and has been modified periodically to meet changing regulations. No nuclear plant could have avoided a meltdown after being swamped by a tsunami and losing power to cooling systems for an extended period of time, the company says -- and at least one expert CNN spoke to agrees.

But concerns about the Mark I's ability to contain the consequences of a severe accident have been raised for decades, and critics say the Fukushima Daiichi accident shows it can't survive a real-world disaster.

The structure was designed so steam that builds up in an overheating reactor can be diverted into a doughnut-shaped water tank known as the suppression pool, or torus, where it condenses back to water to reduce pressure inside the reactor containment building. That allows utilities to build a much smaller containment structure -- as little as one-sixth the size of those used at some U.S. plants.

Stephen Hanauer, a former top safety official at what was then the Atomic Energy Commission, warned in 1971 that in an accident in which the core slowly loses coolant and overheats, the Mark I containment "would overpressurize. That could lose the torus water source, hence ECCS [emergency core cooling system] as well as leak out fission products."

"A hardened vent is just a way of saying we're going to uncontain the containment," said Ken Bergeron, a former physicist at the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, who took part in the NRC review. "The question comes up now -- and this is a really important question -- can the Mark I containment be made better?"

A Fukushima Daiichi reactor building is covered by a steel frame to prevent dispersal of radioactive materials.

Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear engineer and a leading critic of the Vermont Yankee plant, says the Japanese accident shows the Mark I containment system can't prevent a release of radioactivity in a meltdown.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A nuclear power plant in Covert, Michigan, has been cited for three safety violations, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, joining two other U.S. nuclear plants in getting extra scrutiny from inspectors.

The worst of the violations stems from a September 25, 2011, incident at the Palisades Power Plant in which half of the control room indicators were lost because of an electrical fault "caused by personnel at the site," the NRC announced in a news release.

The NRC said it conducted a special inspection and "determined the plant failed to have adequate work procedures for the electrical panel maintenance work to ensure the job was done successfully."

The NRC said two other violations at Palisades were for a "low to moderate safety significance" issue related to a "coupling failure in the service water system." It said one of the service pumps failed last August due to cracking, something that also happened in 2009.

An inspection concluded: "The plant failed to prevent recurrence of the cracking condition and failed to completely consider the properties of the steel used in a past modification of the couplings."

It sounds like a rather serious failure in regulation and safety standards, and I hope that Japan learns from its mistakes. That said, I'm still supportive of nuclear power, and that won't change until we have a viable safer alternative capable of producing the same (or better) levels of power output.

In the meantime, nuclear power is the best we've got, we should take every effort to mitigate its dangers. This is why I'd like to see new nuclear plants built in the U.S., to replace the aging ones we currently have running.

It sounds like a rather serious failure in regulation and safety standards, and I hope that Japan learns from its mistakes. That said, I'm still supportive of nuclear power, and that won't change until we have a viable safer alternative capable of producing the same (or better) levels of power output.

In the meantime, nuclear power is the best we've got, we should take every effort to mitigate its dangers. This is why I'd like to see new nuclear plants built in the U.S., to replace the aging ones we currently have running.

I can see replacing the older ones for safety reasons but until an agreement can be made about waste disposal coupled with more regulation and safety standards there shouldn't be any new ones.

I can see replacing the older ones for safety reasons but until an agreement can be made about waste disposal coupled with more regulation and safety standards there shouldn't be any new ones.

Well, we have a problem. Power needs are growing, and as much as I like clean energy sources, they cannot produce enough to service our needs. Nuclear power has its problems, but at this time, it's the best we've got.

Well, we have a problem. Power needs are growing, and as much as I like clean energy sources, they cannot produce enough to service our needs. Nuclear power has its problems, but at this time, it's the best we've got.

I understand that it is the best we've got now but I am not willing to believe that it is the only way. Ways can be found to power our homes and our vehicles other than nuclear, oil, or coal.

It sounds like a rather serious failure in regulation and safety standards, and I hope that Japan learns from its mistakes. That said, I'm still supportive of nuclear power, and that won't change until we have a viable safer alternative capable of producing the same (or better) levels of power output.

In the meantime, nuclear power is the best we've got, we should take every effort to mitigate its dangers. This is why I'd like to see new nuclear plants built in the U.S., to replace the aging ones we currently have running.

What percentage of current nuclear subsidy money would you like to see go towards creating viable safer alternatives?